Peter Welch

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. WELCH. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. WELCH. The point of order is the speaker is questioning motives of those on the other side of this argument.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I thank the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), my colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He is a good man. Sometimes he is misguided, but he likes Ben & Jerry's ice cream. I appreciate that. And it is GMO-free. But I do want to address seriously the arguments the gentleman has made because, number one, this is a serious issue. It is a serious issue, first of all, because this legislation puts handcuffs on all of our State legislatures from doing whatever it is they deem in the best interest of their people. Secondly, it puts handcuffs on voters. Mr. Pompeo said that voters have rejected this. In some ballot initiatives, that is the case. He is right. Why pass a law that takes that power from the voters and invest it here? This is a very serious policy question where the United States House of Representatives is intruding into the efforts of States to represent the people that they serve. By the way, three States have passed laws by overwhelming margins. In Vermont, the Vermont Senate bipartisan body, it was a 26-2 vote; the Vermont House bipartisan body, it was 114-30 vote. In Connecticut, it was 143-3 in the House and 35-1 in the Senate. In Maine, it was 114-4, and it was unanimously passed in the Senate 35-0. What we are doing in the House of Representatives right now is saying to the Vermont legislature, saying to the Maine legislature, and saying to the Connecticut legislature: Drop dead. What you passed, we are taking away. I don't think that is right. I will make an acknowledgement. Sometimes, it is the right thing for the Federal Government or the Congress to preempt State action so that it can have a uniform, across-the-board standard. That is what the DeFazio bill does. It acknowledges that so you don't have this patchwork. This bill, with voluntary labeling, in effect, creates a patchwork. Does it mean that company A decides they do want to label and they write the label they want and company B writes another label or doesn't? What does that mean for consumers? First of all, in all likelihood, there will be no labels. Secondly, there will be the patchwork produced by this legislation that is what the critics of the State-by-State approach say they want to avoid. Next, there was an assertion by my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, that a label is a warning. I think that really goes to the heart of what the dispute here is. Is a label a warning? In fact, the proponents of the DeFazio bill and the opponents of this bill are not asserting that the purpose of the label is to suggest there is scientific evidence indicating GMOs cause health problems. What a label is, is information; and the consumer then decides. Your consumers and my consumers, they decide. Whatever their reason is, they have a right to decide to buy product A or B, depending on what is in it or what is not in it. What is the big fear about letting consumers know? A lot of the big advocates that are pushing this are, in fact, some of these manufacturers that create products that they sell to farmers, and Mr. DeFazio outlined that in his argument. They fear that the label will reduce the saleability of that product. Here is the irony: If what they are producing and selling is so good and so nutritious and so tasty and so yummy, why not let the consumer know what is in it? That would be something you would want to advertise. This really is a very profound decision by this Congress. Number one, it is telling States that have been taking initiative on the basis of their citizens' desires that they can't do it anymore. Number two, in the name of avoiding a patchwork set of regulations, it is creating the inevitability of a patchwork. Then, three, in a very basic way, it is telling American consumers that it is really none of their business what is in their product, no matter how much they really want to know what is in their product. I urge that we vote ``no'' and defeat this measure and stand for State rights and consumer rights to know. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELCH. No, but I would suggest that the----

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I will now enter into the Record two articles, ``Mandatory GMO Labeling'' and ``NFU Union Reiterates Support for Mandatory GMO Labeling.'' [From the Huffington Post, July 23, 2015] Mandatory GMO Labeling--It's Your Right To Know (By Gary Hirshberg) The crossfire on whether or not to require mandatory labeling of GMOs has become so heated and partisan that it's hard to discern the facts from rhetoric. The latest volley was last week's Slate essay that challenged labeling proponents' lack of substantive proof that GMOs are unsafe or unhealthy. Author William Saletan raises many valid points, but equally fails to address the hyperbole and enormous gaps between the promise and actual performance of agricultural biotechnology. But beyond this imbalance, he entirely misses the fact that there is a long history of government-enacted labeling disclosures that have nothing to do with safety concerns. There are no unique risks associated with orange juice ``from concentrate'' compared to fresh juice, or from ``wild caught'' vs. farmed fish, but both require labeling so that consumers can choose. Most content on food labels is government mandated, marketing oriented, or intended to inform consumers about information that people just want to know. And that is the fact that trumps all the others. Despite years of heated and often exaggerated rhetoric on both sides of the GMO labeling debate, poll after poll reveals that the public's skepticism has remained unchanged and that people just want to know. The latest Mellman polls show the same results as polls taken three years ago--nine in every 10 of Americans want labels on foods containing GMOs so they can make up their own minds. Here are the three reasons why this choice makes sense: Inadequate Scientific Research There have been essentially no studies by the government or independent researchers designed to assess the long-term public health impacts of growing and consuming GMO crops. FDA approvals are essentially based on studies conducted by industry. GMO technology developers design and conduct all of the studies carried out on their own inventions, interpret the results (almost always finding ``no new or novel risk''), and report their conclusion to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of a ``voluntary consultation.'' The FDA then performs a cursory appraisal of the submitted data, and rarely asks for additional information. It does not verify the data's reliability, nor attempt to independently confirm the conclusions drawn from it by the companies. This is why the FDA is always careful to say, in closing out a ``voluntary consultation'' that ``you [the company] have concluded . . .'' The lack of credible, independent research on GMO safety, performance, and economics is the root cause of lingering controversies over GMO crops like papaya and golden rice, as well as confusion over whether Integrated Pest Management, organic systems, or GMOs are the best way to deal with pests. In order for us to be able to trust the science, both the public and private sectors need to invest more heavily in the work and careers of independent scientists willing to develop and apply improved tools to monitor the impacts of GMO technology and alternatives. Until then, skepticism will not diminish, in spite of the propaganda. Drastically increased herbicide use despite claims to the contrary While proponents promised that GMO crops would reduce pesticide use, they have, in fact, locked farmers into unilateral, chemical and toxin-based pest management systems that are bad for farmers, the environment, and consumers. However, the use of herbicides, a category of pesticides that kill weeds, has explosively increased, according to USDA survey data. Where GMO soybeans and cotton are grown in 2015, overall per acre herbicide plus insecticide use will be close to double the level in 1996 at the dawn of the GMO era. Since the mid-1990s, when biotech companies introduced genetically engineered crops that are not adversely impacted by the herbicide glyphosate, its use has increased 16-fold to the point where the USGS has found glyphosate in 60-100 percent of Iowa rainwater. Over-use of this formerly effective weed control has led to the rapid spread of over a dozen serious glyphosate-resistant weeds, so now farmers must now spray three, four, or five herbicides. This includes older products with greater potential to cause damage. Farmers also now apply herbicides throughout the growing season instead of a single application at the beginning with greater potential to damage the soil, harm wildlife, and increase collateral damage, particularly among those living in farming areas and drinking water with multiple herbicide residues in it. Thanks in large part to to GMO crop technology, glyphosate is now by far the most heavily used pesticide in history, both in the U.S. and worldwide. Glyphosate is now showing-up in the drinking water, air and breast milk of mothers in areas where these herbicides are in concentrated use. Most people on the planet are exposed to glyphosate on a near- daily basis. And this past spring, the world's most respected cancer research group--the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as ``probably carcinogenic.'' So to summarize, regardless of whether GMOs are ultimately found to be safe to eat, the WHO IARC findings raise serious questions about whether they are safe to grow. As resistance continues to escalate due to over-use, farmers will have no choice but to continue increasing their use of these toxic herbicides. This is surely material to us all. It's Simply Our Right to Know Responsible advocates are not demanding mandatory GMO labeling because they are unsafe; we are demanding labeling because people want, and have a right to know how our foods are grown. Just Label It and other responsible labeling proponents have never argued that science has proven GMOs to be unsafe, although we have and will continue to make the case for more in-depth, independent science using state-of- the-art methods to be as sure as possible that they are safe. But while scientific questions persist over the safety of today's GMO crops, the now sharply upward trajectory in the amount of herbicide needed to bring most GMO crops to harvest on every continent on which GMO, herbicide-tolerant crops have been planted, is deeply worrisome. People have dozens of valid reasons for wanting to know whether their food is from genetically engineered crops. Some are grounded in religious or ethical views. Others reflect concern over the long-term consequences of corporate control over both seeds and the food supply. Yet others legitimately believe that there has been inadequate independent testing of GMOs for health and safety. Whatever the reason, it is clear that facts and rhetoric will continue to be debated for years to come. In the interim, mandatory labeling of GMO foods will give consumers another option to steer clear of uncertainty and support farming systems and technology more closely aligned with personal values and concerns. This Thursday, Congress will vote on H.R. 1599 the so-called Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act (colloquially called the ``DARK Act'' for Denying Americans the Right to Know), which deceptively purports to support federal labeling disclosures. But in fact, this bill would effectively block any hopes of American joining the other 64 nations around the world who have instituted mandatory GMO labeling. This bill needs to be stopped so that all interested parties--food companies, farmers, regulators and consumers can sit down at a table and forge a mutually acceptable and responsible mandatory labeling protocol free of hyperbole and judgment that simply allows consumers to vote in the marketplace for the kind of food system we want. Please contact your congressperson and tell them to stop the DARK Act and vote against H.R. 1599.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. WELCH. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. WELCH. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, America needs a long-term, sustainably funded surface transportation bill. You know it. I know it. The Governors in all of our States know it. We need it to repair our roads and bridges and to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Every single one of the 435 Members in this body has needs in his district. Speaker Boehner has 136 deficient bridges in his district. Leader Pelosi has 29. In my State of Vermont, we have 252 structurally deficient bridges. A photo of one of them is right here. It is disgraceful and it is unnecessary. Yet, instead of facing up to this problem that we all share and doing something that a proud and confident country would do--invest in its future--with reckless irresponsibility, we are acting, once again, to dodge our duty with yet another short-term extension of our highway bill. This time, the plan is a bold extension for 5 months, through December 18. Can our transportation agencies really plan a bridge replacement or a major repair in the next 5 months? By the way, how is it paid for? It is not by asking users to pay, which has traditionally been the way we have funded our roads and bridges, but by, in this case, among other dubious devices. We are asking airline passengers 10 years from now to pay a few billion dollars to fix our highways tomorrow. Think about it. Airline passengers in 10 years--2025--will pay for road repairs we make tomorrow. By the way, this resort to gimmicks is not new. It has become a habit. This is the 35th short-term extension in the past 6 years. The last one in July of 2014 was paid for by the gimmick of all gimmicks, pension smoothing. We created a pothole in somebody's pension in the future to fix a pothole in his highway today. Mr. Speaker, we need a long-term plan. We need it first to restore some semblance of duty and responsibility to this House of Representatives that has failed to do its job. We need to have those 600,000 good-paying jobs start digging dirt and fixing those roads and bridges, and we need it to make America more competitive. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. I urge you to join me in voting ``no'' to this joke of a short-term plan. No more Band-Aids, no more patches, no more smoke and mirrors, no more gimmicks. American contractors and workers are ready to do their job. It is time for Congress to do its job and pass a long-term highway transportation bill.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chair, I would like to include an extension of the record indicating that I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall 404. I intended to vote ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Grijalva

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call Vote number 370 on H. Con. Res. 55, I mistakenly recorded my vote as No when I should have voted Yes.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I would have voted `Aye' on the Schiff of California Amendment No. 6 to H.R. 2596.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we need a surface transportation bill, but the last thing in the world we need is this bill, a 2-month extension. If this short-term plan was a necessary step to get us to a long-term bill, that would make some sense; but, as speakers have noted, this is the 33rd time in the past 5 years where Congress has failed to provide long-term and sustainable funding for our surface transportation needs. This is a habit; it is not a plan. Mr. Speaker, this bill follows on the heels of the bill we passed 9 months ago, and that was a 9-month extension of surface transportation paid for by ``pension smoothing.'' You can't make that up. We lowered the obligation corporations pay to pensions in order to put money in the highway transportation fund. We created a pothole in pensions to fix potholes in the highways; it makes no sense, but now, we are here on a 2-month plan--a good job, Congress. We were given some assurances that we would have a long-term bill. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, there are good long-term plans out there. Congressman Renacci has a plan, the President has a plan, as do Congressman Delaney and Congressman Blumenauer. There are policies out there. We don't need a policy debate. We need a decision. The reality is we have got to make Congress work, do its job, and pass a long-term funding bill that is going to allow this country to modernize its airports, fix its bridges, make its railroads safer, and dredge our ports deeper. We have to bring our 20th century infrastructure into the 21st century, and the only way we are going to get that done is by stepping up to the responsibility that we have to pass a long-term funding plan. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the Speaker himself that it is a tough job putting a bill on the floor. It always is tough when Congress has to pull the trigger on what that revenue source is going to be. I will support any plan that is reasonable and sustainable. The only plan I won't support is no revenue plan at all.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, as you know, in 4 days, our transportation fund will expire. This will be the 34th time in the past 6 years that Congress has failed to pass a long-term transportation funding bill. We all know that our highways, our bridges, our airports, and our railroads are being neglected. We have got 20th century infrastructure with a 21st century economy. It is absolutely irresponsible for Republicans and Democrats--for the House of Representatives--to fail to pass a long-term transportation fund. Potholes don't fix themselves, and we have got potholes in red States and in blue States. We also have, in all of our States, good, hard- working Americans who could be put to work if we would give that long- term funding. You know, you can't build a bridge with 2-month funding increments. So in addition to a lack of money, there is a lack of certainty. It is not because there aren't solutions. We have got good proposals from Republicans. We have got good proposals from Democrats. But we need a decision. We are not grasping for a new policy. And the thing that is unacceptable is for Congress not even to have a discussion about what will be the source of that funding. We should not extend another short- term highway fund. We should do our jobs and fully fund it.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of the start of Building Safety Month, to recognize the importance of building safety and to recognize the leadership of the International Code Council (ICC) that develops and publishes the model building safety and energy efficiency model codes used in my home state of Vermont, and each of the other 49 states. Increasingly, these codes, developed in the United States, are being adopted in other nations where safety in construction is desired. Over the past few years, we have had several sobering reminders about the importance of building codes. In other nations, much like the case in the U.S. before the codes were widely adopted, natural events and poor construction practices still cause catastrophic loss of life. Every year, deadly fires, tornados, windstorms, floods, earthquakes and other events remind us of the critical need for strong buildings. As Congress discusses the need for resilience and greater energy efficiency in our communities, Building Safety Month reminds us that key elements of resilience and energy efficiency are properly enforced building and energy codes. The theme of this year's Building Safety Month is ``Resilient Communities start with Building Codes.'' I want to congratulate the leaders of the ICC, which has sponsored Building Safety Month in May every year for over 30 years. The leaders of ICC, including President Guy Tomberlin, Branch Chief Residential/Light Commercial Inspections for Fairfax County, Virginia; Vice-President Alex Olszowy III, Building Inspection Supervisor, Lexington/Fayette Urban County Government, Kentucky; Secretary/Treasurer M. Dwayne Garriss, State Fire Marshal, State of Georgia; Past President of the Board of Directors, Stephen Jones, Construction Official, Millburn Township/Short Hills, New Jersey will join ICC's Chief Executive Officer Dominic Sims in Washington the week of May 25th to discuss the critical need to support the adoption and enforcement of current building codes, to make sure Americans are safe at home, at work, at school and at play. I also want to congratulate the leaders of the Building Safety Association of Vermont ICC, including President Glenn Moore and the other leaders of the Vermont ICC Chapter. I would also like to thank the thousands of men and women who work every day to make sure our buildings comply with building and fire codes. Their work, largely unseen and often unnoticed, is critical to keeping Americans safe. The model building codes, developed by ICC members from all 50 states, allow every community to share the advantage of adopting building codes that are adaptable to local conditions, but at the same time incorporate the very latest research, materials, and building practices. This is achieved in a private-public partnership, saving local jurisdictions from bearing the large expense of code revision, updating and coordination. These model codes are produced through the cooperation of thousands of local U.S. code officials working with the building industry to produce codes that represent a consensus on what the minimum safety requirements are for various building types, all without a dime of Federal taxpayer money. Congratulations to the hard working members and leadership of the International Code Council.

Mr. WELCH

Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for his excellent work. Today is a very good day in Congress and in our country as we send to the President's desk bipartisan legislation that will: one, lower energy bills for families and businesses; two, create good jobs in manufacturing American-made energy efficiency products; and, three, improve our environment by reducing carbon emissions. I am hopeful that the common ground we have found in this bill sets the stage for further cooperation by both parties and by both Chambers in addressing many of the challenges facing our country. I want to thank Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield, and I want to thank Ranking Member Pallone and Ranking Member Rush for working with us to advance this important legislation. Thank you, especially, Representative McKinley, for partnering with me this term and last on this issue. Your background as an engineer and as a small business owner has provided much-needed expertise to our committee, and I am grateful to you for your partnership and leadership on this issue. The bill before us today, as Mr. Whitfield said, advanced by Senators Shaheen and Portman in the Senate, also includes some very good ideas from many Members of this House, those from Representatives Cramer, Doyle, Latta, Loebsack, Castor, and Kinzinger. Thank you all for your contributions to this good, bipartisan bill. Madam Speaker, I have long believed that energy efficiency is an issue that lends itself to looking past partisan differences to find common ground in our Congress. We may disagree on the causes of climate change and of the best fuel mix to meet America's energy needs, but we can all agree that using less of whatever energy source is more. We can all agree that creating demand for American-made, energy-efficient products will create good jobs, and we can all agree that cutting the energy bills of homeowners, businesses, and the Federal Government is a very good thing. Vermont has been a leader for a long time in energy efficiency. We were the first in the Nation to establish an ``energy efficiency utility'' to provide assistance to homeowners and businesses that were seeking to lower their energy bills. In 2013 alone, the work of Efficiency Vermont yielded a lifetime customer savings of $206 million for Vermonters. That is real money. The bill before us today takes an important step towards making America more energy efficient. It includes the Better Buildings Act, also known as Tenant Star, which will drive private sector innovation in the energy efficiency sector. Homes and buildings consume 40 percent of our energy in the United States. That is 40 percent. In commercial buildings, owners report that tenants consume up to 50 percent or more of the total building energy. One of the challenges facing commercial buildings has been the issue of ``split incentives.'' Building owners and tenants are not always on the same page when it comes to energy performance. Part of the problem is that only one party is paying the energy bill. The other part of the problem is that, while we recognize energy-efficient buildings through our ENERGY STAR program, we have no similar recognition program for tenant spaces. Our bill creates a voluntary Tenant Star recognition program for separate spaces in commercial buildings. When we combine ENERGY STAR buildings with Tenant Star rentals, we can optimize energy efficiency and shorten payback periods. A good example of this synergy can be found in the ENERGY STAR-certified Vermont Innovation Center, located in Burlington, Vermont. The Vermont Energy Investment Corporation is located in this building as well as my own district office. The VEIC took aggressive action to optimize the efficiency of its tenant space in the building. It converted the overhead fluorescent lighting to highly efficient LEDs and applied 6 inches of spray foam insulation to the exterior walls. Making these improvements in an ENERGY STAR building optimized an already efficient tenant space. The VEIC expects to save nearly $11,000 a year in energy savings. However, there is no recognition program for these improvements, and we don't know what else VEIC could be doing to increase energy savings. Under this bill, we will study the best ways to optimize commercial tenant spaces and to recognize such spaces with a new Tenant Star label. By combining energy-efficient tenant build-outs with ENERGY STAR buildings, we will double down on a successful program and optimize energy savings in commercial buildings, all through voluntary action. In addition to Tenant Star, this legislation includes two other important efficiency provisions. First, the bill makes much-needed changes to energy efficiency standards for large water heaters used in demand response programs. These water heaters act as residential energy storage devices and allow utilities to curb energy demand during peak hours. Mr. Whitfield, thank you again for your leadership on this. Second, the bill will require the disclosure of the amount of energy consumed in federally leased buildings and begin benchmarking their energy use. In the coming weeks, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass additional bipartisan energy efficiency bills, including a more expansive version of the McKinley-Welch-Shaheen-Portman legislation before us today. We should also pass legislation to encourage performance contracting in Federal buildings and streamline the Federal green schools efforts. Madam Speaker, energy efficiency is not a partisan issue. I am encouraged by the steps we are taking today and look forward to working with my colleagues on additional initiatives that cut energy bills, create jobs, and improve the environment. I urge Members to vote for this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.